ghl_payment_order_record_payment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating it does not process a live charge and updates order status to 'Paid'. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects (e.g., whether it sends notifications, handles partial payments, or fails on already-paid orders). With annotations providing readOnlyHint=false, the description slightly enhances transparency but remains incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately concise but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Record Order Payment' repeated) and includes technical details (endpoint, OAuth scopes) that may not be necessary for an AI agent. It could be streamlined to a single clear sentence without losing value. It is not excessively verbose but not optimally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the schema covers parameters fully and no output schema exists, the description adequately captures the core functionality. However, it omits important context like handling of partial payments (even though schema includes isPartialPayment), error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., order must exist and be unpaid). The description is sufficient for basic use but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters and nested fields having descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool records a manual/offline payment against an order and explicitly distinguishes it from processing a live charge. The verb 'records' and resource 'payment against an order' are specific, and the detail about updating order status to 'Paid' adds clarity. The tool is well-differentiated from potential siblings like ghl_invoice_record_payment by its name and description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (to record a payment and update status) but does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. There is no mention of when to use related tools like ghl_invoice_record_payment or constraints like requiring the order to be unpaid. Guidance is adequate but lacks depth.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.